We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?
Options
Comments
-
3. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind the ' people who consider the FIT system flawed and entails the poor paying the rich, is emotive - so let's ignore subsidies'
4. By all means have a theoretical discussion on future technical developments on solar PV. However in a thread to discuss 'solar FIT - good or bad' to want to ignore subsidies makes no sense to me - FIT is a subsidy.
I don't believe anyone is saying that we should ignore the emotive issue of money. However, as you keep stating this is a subsidy.
The key word is 'subsidy'. Subsidies are generally used to protect something you don't want to lose, or to artificially promote something that is desired.
The world has gone down the route of artificially supporting renewables to hasten their introduction, and dare I say, the point at which they reach financial viability.
PV is too expensive today, there I've said it, PV is too expensive.
That's why it's receiving a subsidy. You can't separate today's expense from tomorrow's benefits, not when a 'subsidy' is involved. They are completely and totally interlinked. The question here is not FIT subsidies for today. It is FIT subsidies for tomorrow.
Take out the word subsidy and I'll agree with everything you have been saying about the cost impact today. But leave the word subsidy in, and you have to, and I mean have to look at tomorrow. This is long-term big picture thinking.
So what does the FITs buy us, cheap and economical electricity today, of course not. It's Britain's contribution towards the national and international development of the solar PV industry. Which 'hopefully' will lead to an additional tool that we can use. Actually 2 tools, demand reduction through domestic and commercial installations, and additional energy supply through large scale generation.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
I like it, I got my first cheque today.
But in all fairness why shouldn't solar be subsidised, without it, it would be nothing, no one would ever pay 15k to save 70quid a year off their electricity bill.
Let's not also forget the subsidy is peanuts in comparison to what the fossil fuel and nuclear energy get subsidised by. Don't say "but the nuclear subsidy isn't added on to our electricity bill like solar is," we still pay for it through our tax, and that bill runs into the billions.
the subsidy is for initial uptake when the pricing of equipment is high - year on year we`ve seen a 50% drop in equipment pricesa; now wether the fitting companies actually pass that along is down to them (and the sales techniques they use) - but chinese panels are now 67p a watt and at current rates ,soon enough , you wont need fits for viability0 -
Everybody on here should have a close look at the single payment scheme for farmers to see how public money can really be wasted.
The average subsidy payment is just over £2400pa, the administration cost last year worked out at an average of £1783 per farm. The Rural Payments Agency should be a national scandal, PV is well managed and cost effective in comparison. I'm amazed the whole debacle hasn't had much coverage in the national press.0 -
1. If solar PV becomes 'self-sufficient' (i.e. needs no subsidy) then it doesn't matter if it is on a roof, or large scale. The latter will produce electricity at a lower cost and, as outlined by Graham, it simply becomes a case of how effectively its intermittent generation can be utilised by the Grid.
2. That the subsidies have reduced, and doubtless will reduce further, is not in dispute. However to credit the current system of subsidy with any role in reducing future costs is bizarre.
How has your 43.3p/kWh FIT + use as much as you like in-house -package contributed?
Higher efficiency panels, and improved manufacturing techniques - developed in the Far East, Germany and USA will drive down solar prices.
3. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind the ' people who consider the FIT system flawed and entails the poor paying the rich, is emotive - so let's ignore subsidies'
It is like having a discussion on Law and Order, but not mentioning crime and punishment because it is emotive.
4. By all means have a theoretical discussion on future technical developments on solar PV. However in a thread to discuss 'solar FIT - good or bad' to want to ignore subsidies makes no sense to me - FIT is a subsidy.
1. It would be interesting to explore this further. If you beleive PV has nothing to offer the UK generation energy mix , then FITs is a waste of money
2. International price have dropped for various reasons, but the main driver for this is demand.
In the UK by creating confidence in a demand, it's allowed suppliers to buy in bulk , it's only by buying in bulk that these lower prices are available.
3. Yes i agree
4. Yes ,
but to look at this short run of subsides and expect instant ROI for the 100% without considering future potential benefits for those 100% is unrealistic.
If you beleive there are no future benefits for the 100% (due to reasons offered in 1. ) then FITs is waste of money.
If you dont think the FITs is the driver that's started the reduction in Pv install cost in the UK , then again, its a worthless subsidy ,
but this seems to go against what has been observed over the last 2 years.
and to me this would be bizarre.0 -
Hi1. If solar PV becomes 'self-sufficient' (i.e. needs no subsidy) then it doesn't matter if it is on a roof, or large scale. The latter will produce electricity at a lower cost and, as outlined by Graham, it simply becomes a case of how effectively its intermittent generation can be utilised by the Grid.
2. That the subsidies have reduced, and doubtless will reduce further, is not in dispute. However to credit the current system of subsidy with any role in reducing future costs is bizarre.
How has your 43.3p/kWh FIT + use as much as you like in-house -package contributed?
Higher efficiency panels, and improved manufacturing techniques - developed in the Far East, Germany and USA will drive down solar prices.
3. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind the ' people who consider the FIT system flawed and entails the poor paying the rich, is emotive - so let's ignore subsidies'
It is like having a discussion on Law and Order, but not mentioning crime and punishment because it is emotive.
4. By all means have a theoretical discussion on future technical developments on solar PV. However in a thread to discuss 'solar FIT - good or bad' to want to ignore subsidies makes no sense to me - FIT is a subsidy.
In order ...
1. But it does .... if the panels are on a roof there is a consumer connection between generation and consumption which leads to an overall reduction in consumption through increased awareness. The reduction not only effects consumption during the daylight hours of pv generation, it also decreases the overall baseload. Generation in farm-scale systems may be cheaper, but as there is no added awareness the would likely be no direct reduction in consumption, so what's the overall loss in benefit for this approach ... could it be that the baseload remains high ? ....
2. How can this possibly be considered as being the case ? .... Subsidy across the developed world has ensured that a market has developed for a product at a far faster pace than would have been the case. PV has been around for years and the market didn't develop because of a disconnect between volume, cost and market. It's only after the introduction of subsidy systems that the market was created which in turn introduced volume which reduced cost. Subsidy is global, the volume related competition is forcing prices downwards and therefore how can it be claimed that the two are not interconnected ? .... I would suggest that any claim that they're not would be considered as being bizarre. Investment in manufacturing efficiencies and process technical improvements which are driving down pv prices would likely not even have been considered at this stage if the volume market didn't already exist, so I don't really follow that part of the argument.
3. Simply keeping the discussion emotive creates two camps. Without the emotive issues we could debate the technical issues. I agree with many of the points raised around the limitations of pv, however, there are really large potential holes in the logic which is applied to the limitations and what pv could actually achieve. To me, logic would dictate that discussing pv without resorting to the emotive issues would lay a foundation of common ground, a position from where the requirement for a market & product development catalyst could be placed into context & understood.
4. I agree, however, without understanding why subsidies were introduced and what they are meant to achieve, how can anyone really decide whether they are good or bad ? .... how can anyone who is not informed form an opinion without resorting to a 'gut feeling' which is likely based on some form of bias, be that technical, economic, social or political ?
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Hi
In order ...
1. But it does .... if the panels are on a roof there is a consumer connection between generation and consumption which leads to an overall reduction in consumption through increased awareness. The reduction not only effects consumption during the daylight hours of pv generation, it also decreases the overall baseload. Generation in farm-scale systems may be cheaper, but as there is no added awareness the would likely be no direct reduction in consumption, so what's the overall loss in benefit for this approach ... could it be that the baseload remains high ? ....
2. How can this possibly be considered as being the case ? .... Subsidy across the developed world has ensured that a market has developed for a product at a far faster pace than would have been the case. PV has been around for years and the market didn't develop because of a disconnect between volume, cost and market. It's only after the introduction of subsidy systems that the market was created which in turn introduced volume which reduced cost. Subsidy is global, the volume related competition is forcing prices downwards and therefore how can it be claimed that the two are not interconnected ? .... I would suggest that any claim that they're not would be considered as being bizarre. Investment in manufacturing efficiencies and process technical improvements which are driving down pv prices would likely not even have been considered at this stage if the volume market didn't already exist, so I don't really follow that part of the argument.
3. Simply keeping the discussion emotive creates two camps. Without the emotive issues we could debate the technical issues. I agree with many of the points raised around the limitations of pv, however, there are really large potential holes in the logic which is applied to the limitations and what pv could actually achieve. To me, logic would dictate that discussing pv without resorting to the emotive issues would lay a foundation of common ground, a position from where the requirement for a market & product development catalyst could be placed into context & understood.
4. I agree, however, without understanding why subsidies were introduced and what they are meant to achieve, how can anyone really decide whether they are good or bad ? .... how can anyone who is not informed form an opinion without resorting to a 'gut feeling' which is likely based on some form of bias, be that technical, economic, social or political ?
HTH
Z
Hi Z,
We can discuss in another thread the technical aspects of solar PV electricity generation. This thread is about the ‘FIT system - good or bad’.
If you think that discussion about FIT is ‘emotive’ and hence shouldn’t be discussed in an Internet forum, then there isn’t much point in continuing the debate.
George Monbiot the arch guru of the Environmental movement wrote this when the FIT scheme was announced, he has made plenty of other statements all confirming his early opinion.Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.
On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient..............
In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.
That sums up the case against FIT.
On your other point that FIT have somehow led to way to cheaper solar panels, I believe that to be a flawed argument. Roger Black posted this early in the thread:'Developing solar technology' is a red-herring from a FIT point of view.
The key technology is pretty much in one, and only one area.
Development of more efficient and cost-effectively manufactured solar cells.
Everything else is essentially make-work, if your aim is to make solar cheaper.
Encouraging people to fit solar panels on their roofs does nothing at all to develop solar cells.
Funding factories to manufacture solar panels from imported cells does nothing.
Funding factories to produce solar cells in the UK, using existing methods does little.
The only real development that can be done to meaningfully drop the cost of solar is to invest in fundamental research, which is going to be expensive to commercialise.
The US recently spent a _large_ amount on this - IIRC totalling a bilion dollars, and some of the companies went under based on the crashing world price of solar-pv
The development of solar panel technology would have continued at the same pace regardless of UK introducing FIT. The incentive and drive to advance the technology comes from places like the Southern States of the USA where their peak load(to power Air Conditioning) coincides with the peak output of solar panels.
Even if you don’t accept the arguments above, we can return to the old chestnut of having solar farms instead of tiny systems on roofs.0 -
Hi Z,
The development of solar panel technology would have continued at the same pace regardless of UK introducing FIT. The incentive and drive to advance the technology comes from places like the Southern States of the USA where their peak load(to power Air Conditioning) coincides with the peak output of solar panels. /
Yes , but that doesn't make this statement untrue
'International price have dropped for various reasons, but the main driver for this is demand.
In the UK by creating confidence in a demand, it's allowed suppliers to buy in bulk , it's only by buying in bulk that these lower prices are available.'
therefore FITs has been the key driver here in the UK to reduced install cost by 50% in 2 years.
kick starting the UK PV market , which once self sustaining will lead to further reduction and hopefully a level in at which it become viable for the majority.
I still think its bizarre that you wont entertain this notion.0 -
Hi Z,
The development of solar panel technology would have continued at the same pace regardless of UK introducing FIT. The incentive and drive to advance the technology comes from places like the Southern States of the USA where their peak load(to power Air Conditioning) coincides with the peak output of solar panels.
You seem to be mistaking development of the technology, with mass production.
Yes, you and Roger are right, the UK's contribution to world demand, will have little effect on the technology, but that is currently the smaller issue (a good one, but smaller).
The big issue is simply, mass production. The more panels that are made the lower the price gets, there is a name for this rule (but I'm rushing) something along the lines off 'for every doubling of demand, you get a 20% reduction in costs' until you hit bottom. PV has been following this trend for 30 years. Minimum prices are not limited as all of the components are cheap, we just have to wait for silicon crystal production to ramp up high enough (like computer memory 15 years ago).
Also as James has explained, ramping up the industry itself, in the UK has led to economies of scale.
Regarding PV farms, why not run the numbers, I tried it a while back. See if the economies of scale, outweigh the additional annual running costs (land, insurance, security etc). I don't know enough about the PV farm costs to get it accurate, but your thoughts would be a start. I'm sure Zeup will be able to polish them!
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Found this, please note the many, many caveats regarding costs. Have fun.
"Regarding solar farms, I think Zeupater has addressed the distribution losses side several times since Nov. But I thought I'd have a punt at the economics.
All complete guesses of the top of my head, so feel free to play around as necessary.
10,000 panel farm (costs broken down, into 16 panel portion for comparison to £8k domestic system).
16 panels (half the 'going rate' for economies of scale = £2,000
Inverter, I simply divided £1,200 by 4 as a guess = £300
Long lasting ground mounts 8m by 3.5m plus install = £300
Grid connection fees £100k / 10,000 panels * 16 panels = £160
Cabling, fittings etc = £20
Mostly guesses = £2,780
Plus labour, profits, planning, site preparation etc £1,000 = £3,780
Annual costs not associated with domestic / commercial install
Land £10,000 pa
insurance and security 3*8hr shifts minimum wage = £36,000pa
Admin, management, site maintenace etc 1/2 time work medium wage = £10,000pa
Total = £56,000
Applied to initial cost = £56k * 40 years * 16 / 10,000 panels = £3,584
Grand total = £2,780 + £3,584 = £6,364
Note: I think my land and labour costs are a little low, but when I first ran them the total came out suspiciously / surprisingly close to £8k, so I thought I'd better lower them. Technically, I've rigged the numbers so they wouldn't look rigged!
Both systems will require maintenance such as inverters, so I've excluded. Panels and panel degradation will be the same (shared technology) so I've excluded any performance difference.
The farm will have perfect orientation and optimised panel angle, and better cooling, so I assume 10% better generation than a good home install. 10% should be similar to system losses compared to consumption at source / next door.
Finally, remembering that the infrastructure investment is from private funds, the farm has to compete with wholesale electricity prices and pay taxes to be profitable.
A domestic (or commercial install) needs to meet a combination of wholesale and retail price (depending on consumption %), giving it a large financial advantage on reaching subsidy free viability. A factor of perhaps 2 or 3."
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
jamesingram wrote: »Yes , but that doesn't make this statement untrue
'International price have dropped for various reasons, but the main driver for this is demand.
In the UK by creating confidence in a demand, it's allowed suppliers to buy in bulk , it's only by buying in bulk that these lower prices are available.'
therefore FITs has been the key driver here in the UK to reduced install cost by 50% in 2 years.
kick starting the UK PV market , which once self sustaining will lead to further reduction and hopefully a level in at which it become viable for the majority.
I still think its bizarre that you wont entertain this notion.
Sorry but I disagree with that. It follows from what you say that if we had no fits over the last 2 years and therefore virtually no solar, then prices today would be those from 2 years ago (i.e. ab £15k for a 3kw system). I'd say uk actions have done nothing (beyond noise) to change any of the prices, and if we started fits today (to give a 6% return), then a typical system prices would be £7k, not £15k.
Boils down to a saving of £0.5bn for the UK, with a tiny amount of low value generation foregone. (i.e. 50% fit level). Everyone now on a 43p+rpi for 25 years would be on a 21p+rpi for 25 years, having shelled out just half the upfront cost.
Installers buying in bulk now would be paying half of the bulk price 2 years ago irrespective of how much solar is currently installed. We haven't affected world wide demand beyond the insignificant imv.
(Again, as with many things, the scale of things is misunderstood imv. Like the uk thinking closing or keeping one coal power station affects the planet, when other countries are building 3 every week!). I'm afraid Cool Brittania no longer rules the waves, or indeed has a significant effect in anything global these days (probably due to a similar attitude to that leading to the prefix of 'cool')0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards